CASE NO. 92-ERA-16

YVONNE WILKINSON
    Complainant

    v.

TEXAS UTILITIES
    Respondent

    In Re: Richard Emery Dow, Jr. (a.k.a. R. Mickey Dow)

    On March 6, 1992, an Order was entered denying Respondent's motion to disqualify Complainant's lay representative. In view of events occurring since that date and other circumstances, including the representative's failure to appear at the August 4, 1992 hearing, the Court has reconsidered that Order pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 18.34(g)(2).¹

    The privilege of appearing as a lay representative may be revoked if the Court finds that Mr. Richard Emery Dow, Jr. (a.k.a. R. Mickey Dow):

does not possess the requisite qualifications to represent others; or is lacking in character or integrity; has engaged in unethical or improper professional conduct; or has engaged in an act involving moral turpitude.

29 C.F.R. § 18.34(g)(3).²

    In the present case, Mr. Dow has repeatedly demonstrated his deficient qualifications in the representation of Complainant, Mrs. Yvonne Wilkinson. Further, he has abused the initial consideration afforded him by this Court on March 6, 1192. As such, the Court finds that Mr. Dow is unqualified to represent Complainant in this claim. This decision is in furtherance of the discussion placed on the record August 4, 1992, and is additionally supported by the following reasons:

    1. Mr. Dow failed to appear at the August 4, 1992 hearing of this matter, thus rendering Complainant without effective representation. Such failure to appear impaired the prosecution of Complainant's case and denied her the assistance upon which she relied. Mr. Dow has refused to appear at a hearing in Texas, even though both of the parties and the witnesses reside in that state. See Order Denying Motion to Change the Location of Trial, entered July 24, 1992.

    2. Mr. Dow failed to comply with this Court's June 11, 1992 Pre-Trial Order. This Order directed Mr. Dow to exchange proposed exhibits and a witness list with Respondent, with a copy to the Court. Mr Dow has asserted that he is in possession of Complainant's primary exhibits.

    3. Mr. Dow has repeatedly demonstrated dilatory tactics in prosecuting this claim, including, but not limited to, the following: seeking to change the location of the August 4, 1992 hearing two weeks prior to the hearing, after he was notified of the date, place and time of the hearing by an order entered on June 11, 1992; failing to timely notify the Court of his medical excuse for failing to appear at the March 10, 1992 hearing, instead responding after the issuance of an Order to Show Cause; submitting overly broad discovery requests after failing to appear at the original March 10, 1992 hearing (see Order Denying Motion to Compel and Granting Motion to Stay Discovery, issued May 20, 1992); and failure to allow Complainant's deposition due to his alleged inability to attend after this Court ordered him to do so (see Mr. Dow's letter to Respondent's attorney, dated February, 25, 1992³ ).

    4. Mr. Dow has exhibited a lack of knowledge regarding the applicable procedure before this Court, including, but not limited to, the following: several ex parte attempts to communicate with the Court; requests for a hearing on the merits via telephone conference (see letter from Judge Jennings to Mr. Dow denying

    6. Mr. Dow's character and integrity have been placed in question by an outstanding warrant for his arrest currently existing in Criminal District Court #1, Tarrant County, Texas, on the charge of felony theft by check, and an outstanding warrant for his arrest currently existing in the County Court of Erath County, Texas, on the charge of theft $200.00 to. $750.00.⁴ See Respondent's Request For an Examination of the Qualification of Complainant's Representative, dated February 28, 1992. Mr. Dow has not denied the validity of these warrants.

    7. Mr. Dow has engaged in acts involving moral turpitude, as demonstrated by his 1979 felony convictions for theft by check and breaking and entering of postal vehicles, and his 1978 felony conviction for burglary. See Respondent's Request For an Examination of the Qualification of Complainant's Representative, dated February 28, 1992. Mr. Dow has not contested the evidence establishing these convictions.

¹ Section 18.34(g)(2) states in part: "The administrative law judge may, at any time, inquire as to the qualification or ability of such person to render legal assistance."

² The Court finds that Mr. Dow had ample notice and opportunity to be heard prior to the entry of this Order.

³ In his letter, Mr. Dow discussed his interlocutory appeal and other motions he had filed, "so [he did] not see March 10 as remaining a viable hearing date. He also urged Respondent to settle this claim in that letter.

⁴ These warrants may be the actual basis for Mr. Dow's refusal to participate in a trial conducted in Texas.